« Don't Know Much about History | Main | Goodbye, Lt. Columbo »

June 23, 2011


Wow..this is amazing stuff. It seems that the discipline of archaeology in the past few years is producing evidence that supports the Bible.

This is the Signature in the Cell guy?

So he writes stuff that flies in the face of what is said and believed by the best scholars in TWO fields!?

Any alarm bells ring on that?


I think, being that his writings are all in the field of Christian aplogetics (as I understand it anyway - correct me if I'm wrong), it stands to reason taht he's not claiming to be the expert here, just providing the argument for validity of the Bible. I'd like to see his sources.

Probably most scholars agree that there were early Asiatics in Egypt as slaves. This is old news, and offers little direct support for the biblical Exodus.

"Habiru" as "Hebrews" is highly contested by scholars.

The Merneptah Stele doesn't necessarily imply the dominance of Israel, but rather that they were an established people group.

@RonH... so, because something flies in the face of "the best scholars" it is thereby 'wrong?' Then... wouldn't Darwin have been wrong? Shouldn't the work speak for itself? As Meyer once pointed out himself, 'truth isn't decided in popular vote. It's decided on the evidence.'

Anyway, I usually like Meyer's stuff even if it is a tat biased. Whose isn't? (No one) But concerning the evidence, I have to say, the Ipuwer Papyrus doesn't really seem to be "solid." It has some parallels (and the few that are there are pretty good, mind you) but they are still really really few.

Don't get me wrong, I believe the Exodus occurred, but I wouldn't really use that papyrus as proof.

Are we sure this "Steve Meyer" is the same guy? I've always seen it written as "Steven Meyer," and they are both common names, so I figured it was two different people.

But anyways, do the "best scholars" (though that alone is subjective) actually actively claim that the Israelites were never slaves in Egypt? Or is there just not enough evidence currently, according to them? I don't think this subject is as controversial as you make it sounds...


You've always seen it written as "Steven Meyer"?

What have you always seen written as "Steven Meyer".


Maybe it's "Stephen Meyer" as the link clearly states. I wonder why he's referred to as "Steve"--must be a close friend or peer. You know, like when some famous person refers to Robert Redford as "Bob Redford", or Robert De Niro as "Bobby De Niro".

>>>> Brad B,

Maybe! And maybe a little Googling does indicate strongly that Stevie is the author of The Signature.

And so it does appear that he writes stuff that flies in the face of what is said and believed by the best scholars in TWO fields.

Actually, it's more than two fields: The Signature - although it's mainly supposed to be about biology - is probably the world's greatest repository of misinformation about information theory.

>>>>>> Austin,

If you are agree, let's forget about my previous questions.

do the "best scholars" (though that alone is subjective) actually actively claim that the Israelites were never slaves in Egypt? Or is there just not enough evidence currently, according to them? I don't think this subject is as controversial as you make it sounds...

I'd like to know more about your comment that 'best scholars' is 'subjective'.

Who do you trust to protect you from disease? To train your doctor? The people who build the aircraft you travel in? The bridges you cross?

As for the rest, start from where you are and study to your satisfaction.

What I get is this: Scholars think the Israelites were indigenous. Furthermore, ancient Egypt doesn't have enough room for the Israelites of Biblical story anyway.


It is the same Dr. Steven Meyer. He is not, to my knowledge, an expert in archaeology or Egyptology but he is very capable of logically presenting facts and evidence in the context of specified complexity theory.
The overall case for the Exodus is compelling although asserting there is 'proof' in an empirical sense to hard to do. It is a complex puzzle of Biblical textual evidence, Egyptian hieroglyphics, Egyptian history, archaeology in the Canaanite hill county and cities of Jericho, Hazor and others.
In addition to the evidence cited above, a recent survey of 25 international experts in Egyptology (the politics internally in Egypt about Jews is too hot), 24 said unequivocally that there were Semitic slaves in Egypt prior to the earliest of the two main potential Exodus date of ca 1450 B.C. There is considerably more evidence than is listed on this summary of the video.
>>> RonH
Scholars generally fall in one of three camps. The minimalists like Israel Finklestein, Thomas Thompson, and Phillip Davies believe the OT is a 2nd century construct of Hellenized Jews and the Exodus (and the OT as a whole) is false. The minimalists believe Israel was just another clan formed from original Canaanite inhabitants. Their position is that if the OT says it, it is false. The liberal scholars (that is not a pejorative) like the highly respected Dr. William Dever (the expert you will frequently see on Discover Channel or other documentaries on Biblical archaeology) come in with a hybrid view of a sudden small wave of new inhabitants ca 1400 B.C. mixed with new growth in the Canaanite hill country from the destruction and/or internal unrest in the Canaanite cities like Hazor. Dr. Dever believes the OT contains ‘historical myth’ ; Truth mixed with historicity. The last group is the Biblical conservative like John Bloom, James Hoffmeier, Lennart Moller, Ammon Ben-Tor, Kenneth Kitchen and David Wood (all PhD’s and respected in the field). They believe on varying levels of the OT historicity and that the Exodus occurred although they disagree on where the evidence points for the actual date.
All these men are learned experts and represent various cultural and religious backgrounds. It is a worthy study.


I meant to say that the author of Signature is always referred to as "Stephen Meyer," so I wasn't sure if this "Steve Meyer" was the same. You are right, a google search reveals that they are.

I think the term "best scholars" is subjective because in the sense of history, "best scholars" is synonymous with either "those who hold the majority view" (which does not make that view true or the best, though it often is), or "those who hold MY view." Both of these are subjective, and it seems hard to determine which scholars are closest to the truth when we are relying on these same scholars to tell us what the truth is. I don't even think this is a big deal though, that comment was really just an aside,

To further clarify, we judge the best doctors or engineers on the basis of what they have produced. Does a certain company (Boeing) produce planes that have been reliable and trustworthy to get one from point A to point B? Has a certain doctor's research resulted in treatment that has reliably cured a certain disease? These are practical reasons to trust these "scholars."

How exactly would that work within the field of history?

In the same way [as the women] the men also abandoned philosophy and were inflamed with apologetics. Men heard nonsense, and displayed themselves the normal consequences of their error: They spoke nonsense.

Do you really think one historian is as good as any another - that the idea of a good historical research or writing or, for that matter, a good college is a fantasy?

If so, I must admit it would be hard to do anything for you.

Therefore I give you over in the willful ignorance of your thoughts to intellectual dishonesty for the degrading of your minds with one another.



Thanks for ignoring what I wrote. It really gives a lot of credence to your own intellectual honesty.

I clearly said that it is harder to judge a correct scholar in the field of history than in engineering or medicine. I did not say that it was impossible, or that "one historian is as good as any other."

I would appreciate it if you didn't put words into my mouth in the future.


The comments to this entry are closed.